Washington is abuzz with speculation on who will replace Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff if he, as expected, departs to run for mayor of Chicago. Everyone has advice to offer, and most people have a favored candidate, but it’s really a choice only Obama can make. The chief of staff is first and foremost the filter between the president and everyone and everything else. They determine who gets face-time with the president, and they set up the menu of choices the president has to choose from. The most important attribute, therefore, is trust. The president has to trust that his chief of staff won’t hide bad news or skew policy options. The ideology of the chief of staff is not the most important factor. However, it would be nice if the president chose someone less prone to alienating people than Rahm Emanuel. It’s good to have someone who can knock heads and get things done, but it’s not at all clear that Emanuel’s tough-guy persona really paid off for the president.
Part of the problem has been simple lack of leverage. To really knock heads, people need to fear you or need you. There aren’t very many vulnerable Republicans left in Congress that have anything to fear from a Democratic president. That will probably change (in the House) after the midterm elections. Some new Republican congresspeople will serve in blue districts that will be tough to hold in 2012. New senators won’t be up for reelection until 2016, which will be the end of Obama’s second-term, so they won’t have much to fear.
If the Democrats do better than expected in November, it may be useful to have a chief of staff who can work well with Republicans and craft compromise legislation. But, if the Democrats do poorly, the president is going to need a knife-fighter with brass knuckles. Unfortunately, Obama may have to decide on a replacement before he gets to see the outcome of the elections. He’ll be tempted to use the position as a way to fire up the base. But, obviously, the position is too important to be filled based on the political considerations of the moment.
I’d like to see someone fill the position who doesn’t piss off progressives. That shouldn’t be too hard, although our capacity to gripe in near infinite. Find someone who won’t call us names, for starters. I’d shy away from people who have been lobbyists, too. Above all, pick someone you trust and who won’t give you a bunch of bad press. And if they don’t work out? No big deal. Find someone else.
I’ll say it again – it seems to me that the biggest get would be John Podesta. Despite he’s statements today that a lot of people online are upset about, he has impeccable progressive and political cred. After him, maybe Daschle? Or is he too toxic? And yes, I realize progressives would not be happy about that pick either.
OK, naturally I should have read the linked article, which said the same thing I just did and more, before posting.
Daschle is too yesterday. He would have made sense in 2009, but not now. Also. people forget that Obama was a senator. He doesn’t need a senator as chief of staff to be able to understand the institution. Progressives will not like Daschle as a pick and he wasn’t even confirmable as Health Secretary. So, yeah, he’s toxic.
He’s be a good chief of staff though, and he basically made Obama president. So, I wouldn’t care.
I’d prefer someone who I felt might agree with me on an issue or two.
Though Obama was in the Senate, he was in Washington for only 2 years before becoming President. He doesn’t have the years-long personal relationships with people that others have. That seems important in a CoS: knowing how one person’s arm gets twisted and other person’s ego gets massaged.
I think Hillary Clinton would actually have the personality and experience for it – not a candidate for obvious reasons, but someone like that.
No one on Obama’s VP shortlist seems viable. Maybe he’ll consider Messina, Deputy CoS.
Podesta was Clinton’s Cos during his impeachment, which would make him extremely handy if the Republicans take control of Congress in November.
“In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle”
Sad to say, I wouldn’t be surprised.
For once, I have no freaking clue of who might be nominated or who I think would make a good nominee. Very rare, indeed, but I just can’t think of anyone who can navigate this Congress.
No strong opinions, but someone like Paul Kirk would have a lot of appeal for me. He knows Congress, is associated with the Kennedy wing of the Party rather than the Clinton/DLC wing, and seems to be able to do his job without generating waves of negative press and angering people he needs. And he’s not from Chicago – that circle seems a little too tight sometimes.
How about a popular Senator or Governor from a battleground state? We may still have one or two that Obama didn’t drag to D.C. yet.
Has Emmanuel in National Politics ever actually knocked heads to get things done? I’ve seen him knock a lot of heads to make bad decisions certainly.
Two top possibilities to place “Fucking” Rahm both have lobbyist backgrounds (didn’t Obama promise not to have an open door with K street?):
See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/the-other-alleged-top-candidate
-for-rahms-job-was-also-a-fannie-mae-lobbyist-102472479.html
Since Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin, ex Ceo of Goldman own Obama, I believe it will be Donilon.
Oh for goodness sakes, I saw your paranoid ramblings about this in your other post and now you quote that venerable magazine the Washington Examiner which links to that other sterling publication, Politico, where it is said (not even by any anonymous sources, mind you) that one likely candidate may be Tom Donilon. Nothing to support that, pure speculation but what the hell go with it man.
The rest of of your other post saying that Hillary would be licking her chops about this says what I need to know about where you’re coming from. Because of course Hillary is by far the most progressive person in Obama’s administration. You make tangential links between Geithner and Rubin – saying that Geithner is bought and paid for by GS; you go on and on about Goldman connections and then say that’s perfect for Hillary to take over the reigns in 2012 without ever once contemplating that your darth vader of the economy, Bob Rubin, was the goddam treasury secretary for Bill Clinton!
Every one of your posts appears to be the same sort of ill-informed, gossip filled posts that – is there any reason for that?
Hate to spoil your rant, Homeruk, but I am not a Hillary supporter. My hope is that a real progressive (Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren, hell, I’d even settle for Nancy Pelosi) will primary Obama in 2012. But I’m looking at reality. The person who will benefit the most if the Dems stumble badly in November (and they will) is Hillary. She’s in a perfect position and most of the groups in the party that Rahm and Obama pissed on (women, gays, unions, Latinos) will be more than happy to support her over Obama. I don’t especially like her but I do believe she is much more a fighter than Obama is. I’m well aware that Robert Rubin was Bill’s Treasury Secretary by the way. But Rubin never owned Bill the way he does Obama: just look at all the Goldies in the Obama administration and just look at who was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor. Clinton at least had Robert Reich as a counterweight to Rubin in his administration: Obama has no one of a similar caliber (and don’t tell me the ghost of Hilda Solis compares).
Not wishing to belabour my point, but your posts just make me want to scream. This paragraph from your main post is the most ridiculous I’ve seen in a long time.
“So after the destructive wave hits in November, look for Hillary, probably just before Christmas, to announce that she needs to spend more time “with her family” and away from the glare of spotlights. Next time around, she won’t even have to run a campaign; people will be running to her and asking for her to primary the charlatan, Obama, in 2012. And guess who young people, women, gays, labor unions and anyone who wants a fighter would rather have in office: Obama or Hillary? Note too that former top aides to the Clintons like Peter Dhaou, James Carville, Donna Brazile and Robert Reich have been extraordinarily critical of Obama’s policies. Reich writes an almost daily critique of Obama administration policies over at the Huffington Post. Gearing this team up with be easy for Hillary. Heck, even Bill looks clean these days and the modern Democratic party has no better speech maker and strategist than Bill Clinton. “
I will personally come to the US, ring your doorbell and give you a 54 carat no flaw diamond if this transpires.
and btw, Obama is FAR more progressive than Bill Clinton (I love BC, but I’m sorry do I remember correctly that he didn’t get healthcare, signed DADT, reduced welfare, signed NAFTA, oversaw the repeal of Glass-Steagal, bombed Iraq, bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan to deflect from Monica, signed v important legislation on school uniforms. As for personnel, was Rubin HIS treasury secretary? didn’t he use Dick Morris as a consultant? I mean Come the fuck on!)
Homeruk wrote: “I will personally come to the US, ring your doorbell and give you a 54 carat no flaw diamond if this transpires.” I accept your proposal. So that I know you are in earnest and not full of bullshit as usual, please place the diamond in escrow and give me the name and address of the escrow holder. For some reason, I think you are completely full of shit.
other than the hyperbole in my previous post, what else gives you the impression I am full of bullshit? Have I said anything untrue? Rather I think it is bullshit to write a post about how Hillary would be licking her chops and relying upon so-called Clintonite supporters in the MSM ‘calling Obama out’ and then claim that you are not for Hillary. If that really is the case, what is the whole obsession with Hillary about then?
BTW your suggestions about who should primary Obama show how utterly in the clouds you are. I mean Pelosi for g’ds sake. I love her but she’d be a terrible general election candidate. Same with Feingold btw and Warren? That’s just finger in the air, progressive of the day desparation.
I wonder what you will do when Obama does finally pick Warren to lead the consumer agency?
It depends on what the President decides that the Chief of Staff needs to do. Most chiefs of staff have kept the staffs of the Executive Office of the President working efficiently and effectively and have not been big legislative brokers. Most Presidents have left the legislative heavy lifting to the majority leaders or engaged in it themselves. Rahm Emmanuel’s biggest problem is that he has made himself the highest profile chief-of-staff in history–well, maybe since Sherman Adams. If Obama has been in a White House bubble, it has been one of Rahm Emmanuel’s administration of access. Adams made the same mistake. Fortunately, Rahm had the good sense not to accept the gift of a vicuna coat.
My sense is the White House needs a chief of staff who can start sensibly downsizing the staff to a size more like that of the Eisenhower era. Right now, the White House staff has so much internal communication that external communication from the Cabinet, Congress, and citizens is not getting through to the President except when he seeks it out. And that includes lowering the profile of the chief of staff by letting other advisers act as the go-betweens with various groups supporting the President’s agenda. And by not giving the chief of staff the duty of advising the President on political strategy. If the duties of chief of staff are well-handled, it doesn’t matter what flavor of Democrat the chief of staff is; whatever he does will not be divisive if he sticks to his function. And it is a position that it would not make sense to appoint a Republican as part of a “unity” government.
So who should work with Republicans to craft compromise legislation? That would be the job of the majority leaders in Congress. So who coordinates with the majority leaders’ staffs about the nitty-gritty content of legislation? That would be a legislative liaison function in the White House that has access to Congressional staffs on the one hand and the immediate office staffs of the Cabinet members on the other. And who reports directly to the President.
In point of fact, no White House staffer at any level should piss off any faction of the Democratic Party, rightly or wrongly.
And the bad press is coming from a failed communications strategy that promised transparency and delivered communications through anonymous leaks. And Gibbs has as much responsibility for this failure as does Rahm Emmanuel. And Gibbs also has responsibility for allowing the White House press corps become a story in and of itself, the replacement of Helen Thomas with Fox being a major issue. The White House should not encourage nor countenance a pecking order among the media. Nor should it allow the media to extort policy through granting or withholding coverage of the White House. Gibbs tried to play the game with dishonest brokers like Politico instead of changing the game and actually delivering transparency.
So while we are rearranging the White House staff, how about another communications director and chief spokesperson.
As for knocking heads, it is the President’s job as leader of the party to knock heads of Democrats to have party unity. That responsibility and power cannot be delegated. Not even to Joe Biden. When Democrats are united, it is not necessary to knock Republican heads except to threaten their chances of re-election based on public support for policy. This is what the President failed to do (for maybe understandable reasons related to the racial politics in America) and it is this that has most progressives upset with the White House.
Back to the question at hand. Who would make a good chief of staff? A technocrat who has been an administrator/city manager of a large city and is known to be a loyal Democrat. Or a Democratic governor’s chief of staff. Or a proven low-profile administrator. Someone who understands that they are not to be the story.